This is the fifteenth lecture of the seventeenth ACC, March fifteenth, 1957. Now we're going to continue on as some of this material on the subject of a scale of auditing. How exactly do you do some of these techniques.

The first of these techniques is the most important of all the techniques, 'cause it addresses to far more people who need help than any other technique. And that technique is control. That is all the technique is, and it's one of the better things that an auditor does, although it will appear to an auditor at first one of the worst things he does. Bad to control people. You have to get over that, and then you'll be able to observe rather clear-cutly what control really does.

So we get this as the most ordinary technique that you would use. Now the first vestige of this was the old repetition of communication. Communication, having duplication as part of its formula, becomes communication when it's duplicated. It becomes communication more so. If you duplicate a communication several times it will become more so, if it is not a communication from the first utterance. Hence the comm lag. Overcoming of the comm lag is simply putting a control on the communication line. You overcome a comm lag you put a control on the communication line. By doing what? By insisting that it go through. You insist on an arrival of the communication.

Now that goes on down all the way through mechanics and everything else. Your intention was to have somebody's hand touch a table. And you do so. The way we used to do it, we'd say, "Touch the table," and the fellow wouldn't do it, and we'd say, "Touch the table," and he wouldn't do it, "Touch the table," and he wouldn't do it, "Touch the table," and he wouldn't do it, "Touch the table." We were stuck with the fact that he either received the communication or we lost. And we set up ourselves a lose there. But the repetition of the communication was an insistence upon its existence, and playing upon duplication made it more of a communication.

Now today we do not do that. We recognize that communication goes all the way down the scale into the mechanical realm. With the proviso that good ARC is used on the control, then any mechanical control can be applied. But it has these reservations. He must not be forced, the preclear must not be forced to do something which is physically harmful to him, and which will result in direct and immediate present time pain. He must not be forced into a complicated and irrational action that he would not be able to follow in any way at all, verbally. If a normal preclear could not follow it verbally, then you're not going to be able to execute it mechanically. Make someone walk around three times in the middle of the room and levitate. Not accomplishable. Tell somebody to go over and draw a picture of a stork on the wall, and guide his hand through drawing it and so forth. Well, it's a very complicated proceeding. It's not something he normally could do if he were in good shape. And in this way you've overshot the case. Overshot it badly.

His inability is to do something simple. And that is a disability. And that is the primary disability of this world and culture at this time. The inability to do something simple. And if one were to define disability, one would say, "An incapability of acting with simplicity." That would be disability.

Now it's also true that the randomity scale contains complexity. But it's an amazing thing that it is more important to be able to act in a simple fashion than in a complicated fashion. You have a preclear set up five actions that he does simultaneously, and then you educate him finally into doing these five actions simultaneously. It makes a good circus trick, but that's his trouble. He's already doing too many complicated things.

Disability could be defined as the incapability of performing a simple action. Hence a fellow cannot live his life simply by drawing some pay and going home at night and so forth. He can't live his life that way, he's got to rob the bank. We have a criminal. Well the criminal cannot live his life with a simplicity, that's all. He's got to have a complicated existence.

Well now just the matter of having a job and buying food at the store and so on, is a whole lot of complexities. Something the child has to learn. It's quite complicated as an existence, but it's not complicated enough for these people, and they get much more complicated. And if you follow their careers you will discover that the whole evil genius which haunts them is complexity. Life was too uncomplicated and they made it much more complicated. Now that's one way you could explain it. But they didn't know this. It was an unknown fact to them. They didn't realize this. They've got to get into more trouble, they've got to have more problems, they've got to stir things up into more chaotic fashion.

You tell such a person to; such a person is working in accounting. You say, "Make out a check for ten dollars to cash. And get it signed by the vice president." It comes out to the MacMillan Company, it's for eighteen dollars and seventeen cents, and it is discovered at that moment the vice president isn't in, but the president has the power to sign, so therefore the president is gone for, and the president signs this impossibly erroneous check. And it comes back, it is the wrong check, so then it has to be done over again. You get the idea?

Now that person fits on the tone scale at a level of complexity. It is really not true that they are unable to make out a correct check. They are able to make this correct check, they're able to make it out, hand it around, get it signed, everything else, they're able to do it. But they're not willing to.

They add a great many errors on the line in order to add complexity. They add chaos, complication. You go into any accounting department and you'll find out they're adding up figures in five too many columns. If you want a certain number of reports so that you know how an organization is going, it's almost certain that somebody on the line who is having a tough time with his case will add a complexity to the report channel, which makes it almost impossible to get a proper report. No simplicities can occur.

Now in view of the fact that all businesses are selling ideas or services in return for cash or commodity, ideas, services or commodities in return for cash or credits or commodities, or services, you have a necessary simplicity. You are trying to lay down eighteen tons of manganese on a certain wharf at a certain time. Therefore it has to be dug out of the ground and refined and shipped, and unloaded. Only if that action is performed in its entirely is there a back flow. So if you have people around who are making it very hard to mine manganese because the machinery all breaks down, your legal department thought it must be much more complicated, and so they got their leases all fouled up on the land where the manganese was supposed to be mined, and the percentages are all awry, and no mining can take place until this is straightened out. If the contracts that are made with the trucking and shipping company, as well as the mine union, are all just impossible for any man to understand. It would take at least an Eniac to unwind these contracts. Chances of setting any manganese down on any wharf is quite slim. And you have business failure. That is it. Business failure is composed of a concatenation of complexities. And business success is composed of a concatenation of simplicities. Quite interesting.

Takes a certain amount of complexity to make enough vias to make anything valuable. But beyond that point the value vanishes. For instance if there's manganese all over the place, and anybody could mine manganese, then nobody would ever be in the manganese business. Nobody'd ever buy any manganese. Well, that's a simple way to solve manganese, but it would certainly be upsetting because there couldn't be any business in the line, therefore there could be no game or activity, and thus no purpose in life. A slight scarcity of manganese is desirable. A tremendous scarcity of manganese, brought about by numerous complications is not only undesirable it's completely ruinous.

We get therefore civilizations becoming more and more complex until they fail. We get governments becoming more and more and more and more complex, until they can get nothing whatsoever done, because we have in our midst too many people who must have things on a very complex line.

Let us say that somebody has an authority over another person in a line of action or organization, business, a military company, any kind of third dynamic activity. And this person who has the command line tells another person that hereinafter he should buy pencils with erasers. Now this is a routine and ordinary action. Very routine, very ordinary. Buy pencils with erasers. If he's got a very complicated man on the other end of that command line, oh my god! You will find, before you're through, reports that the last company that made pencils with erasers no longer has any contract with so and so, and therefore such and so, but it can't be bought with that supply company, and some other and so on. Now it may occur to you, it may occur to you that there is some validity in these statements which are being made, if you were on the command point saying, "Get some pencils with erasers." You'll buy this to the degree that you too cannot stand a simplicity.

I had a ship once. Nobody could ever get any paint for her. For some reason or other there was a war regulation that you weren't supposed to paint anything. I don't know what they were supposed to do, but you weren't supposed to paint anything. Paint was very explosive. True enough, old US Navy cruisers and that sort of thing had twenty, thirty, forty coats of paint on them, and their armor plate was almost as explosive with paint as powder. But this didn't have anything to do with simply putting one little, thin coat of paint on your stack so you wouldn't loom quite so vividly in fogs and things, you know? But nobody could get any paint. Nobody. Boatswains, executive officers, yard people. There was just no paint. No paint at all. It was all too complex. The requisitions you had to sign. Wonderful. But no paint ever arrived, but an awful lot of people were busy on trying to get hold of some paint. My were they busy!

And a young fellow who was an insurance salesman reported aboard. And I said to him, I said, "You suppose you can get us some paint?" "What kind of paint?" "Grey paint." "How much you need?" "Oh," I said, "about fifty gallons." "Oh?" he says. "OK." And he came back ten minutes later with the paint.

Young man named Martin Dye from California. He was absolutely fantastic. They'd kidnapped him out of an insurance business where he was making millions. And they'd put him in uniform, and he was just walking through a war. And it was real fabulous. This man's level of operation was fantastic. I was sure he'd stolen the paint, but the head of the yard sent me through the chit for my signature a couple of days later, for the paint. It was even illegal to have the paint, to issue the paint, or anything else. But, they just gave me the paint. Very, very fascinating, because this young man showed up at once all those people on those communication lines who had been making it very difficult to get paint. He showed them up. And a subsequent career too. These people demonstrated conclusively that they couldn't live without a complete chaos. The chaos was absolutely necessary to them. Some people ate breakfast, but those people ate chaos. It was gorgeous. Engines, guns, everything else would blow up in these people's vicinity. They were just a one man disaster, either one of them.

Complexity, complexity, complexity. Inability to perform a simple action. Now that's fortunate for us that that's what's wrong with people. Very fortunate for us that that's what's wrong with people. If it was complexity, need of, inability to perform a complex action, we'd be sunk. We would be sunk. We would say, "Well, let's get these five balls here, and when the preclear can juggle them and look cross eyed, and twiddle his toes at the same time, why his case will be in good shape." But we're not in the field of psychology. We're not in a complex subject.

We're in a complex situation known as life. And therefore you will find very broadly that the technique control, all by itself, is intensely workable as long as you keep it as simple as it is real to the preclear. You keep it as simple as it is still real to the preclear. Now that's true of mimicry and it's true of a lot of other things, we're talking about a highly specialized process here known as control. And it's very specialized. Tremendous.

Now I'll give you an example of the use of this process on which I have subjective reality. Children very often wake up screaming with a nightmare, particularly after they've had a tiring day and something is wrong with their chow. They'll wake up screaming. Nightmare. Demons or devils are just about to chew 'em in half. To bring a kid out of a nightmare it's sometimes only necessary to wrap your arms around him, give him a little havingness thereby, and he realizes where he is, he comes out of it, and you put him back down again, and that's that. When you do that, by the way, stand them on a table and put your arms around them, it gives them the security of something solid under their feet. Just that, just hold them. You don't even have to talk to them. And the havingness of you plus them brings them up to present time, and that's that. Quite tricky.

Alright. Sometimes a child comes out of a nightmare and doesn't come out of it. It's too deep, too far gone, too upsetting. Such a child, such a nightmares would have pursue having been badly frightened or badly hurt. Alright, small child wakes up screaming. Cannot be comforted, won't go back to sleep. That's just the best thing to do with them, you just pat them on the head and show them where they are, and put them back to sleep. But this child won't recognize where he is, and won't go back to sleep, and that's that. What can you do with this situation? Child keeps screaming. Well, man has usually worn out bedroom slippers, patience and the neighbors' tolerance by walking up and down, holding the child, hoping it will go to sleep, hoping it will shut up, sometimes the rest of the night. What would an auditor do in this situation? He'd take the child and say to the child, "Give me your hand." The child would probably just keep screaming. The auditor'd take the child's hand and put it in his own. He'd use his other hand to put the child's hand in his own, you see? And say, "Thank you." And let the hand go and say, "Alright, give me your hand." Pick up the child's hand and put it in his own and say, "Thank you." Let go of it. Say, "Give me your hand." Pick up the child's hand, put it in his own hand, and say, "Thank you." I'm afraid that's it.

Now the child's reactions during this period are quite violent. Screams, upsets, tries to sit on his hands, tries to put them under the couch, tries to do something with them, throw them away. His stream of conversation or communication, if you could call it that, is quite foreign. Divorced from the situation, "Don't throw me in the water, don't throw me in the water, don't throw me in the water!" Interesting, but there isn't any water anywhere around. Disassociated from the environment, the communications are. "I don't like you, go away, go away, go away! Don't bite me!" And finally, "I don't like me, I don't like me, I don't like me, I don't like me." And finally, since each time the auditor did it it would be necessary to wait to see, just a moment, if the command was going to be executed without any manual prompting, but that's just a split instant. It's not very long. And all of a sudden the child, timidly, offers his hand, on the command, "Give me your hand." Fine, and after that it just goes on a verbal process. "Give me your hand." Shake, "Good. Give me your hand." Shake it, "Good. Give me your hand. Thank you." Child all of a sudden laughs. Looks around the room and says, "Hello." Now that's an interesting situation.

Now here is a situation of a child in a nightmare, which possibly is quite comparable to a person in the middle of a psychosis. Comparable. A nightmare that cannot be disturbed, something is happening that isn't taking place in that environment. You got a disassociation between the person and the environment, the people present and so forth, and you have all manner of misemotion back flowing at the auditor. Well now that's the way control is done. Why "Give me your hand?" Not because it is a symbol of friendship, we're trying to make a communication line. Recognizing the first he'll recognize is a line. And he'll recognize the connected arm, which is a line. And that'll give him the first gasp of a terminal. The recognition of a line pursues for a little while and so on. The amount of resistance against giving the hand, sitting on the hands and so forth does not call on the auditor's part for any violence of any kind. And this I suppose is the biggest lesson you've got to learn.

The more control you use, the higher the ARC. You raise the level of control, you'd better raise the level of ARC. As you increase the amount of strength necessary to cause the mechanical compliance with the command, you had better increase the ARC proportionately. And it gets to a point of where you would have to pick up some person twice as big as you are, if it gets to that point, against their violent back thrust, your ARC would have to be a model that angels would be happy to copy. And that one in this unit, or in any unit, is one you have to learn.

Why? Why do you have to learn it? Well you have to unlearn your "I'm supposed to" response. When somebody uses violence or force against you, you are supposed to, according to life, Q and A and use violence against them. And your tone of voice must be as violent as the amount of muscle employed. Oh that's what you're supposed to do in life. But that is an auditor Q and Aing with a preclear on emotion.

You're not supposed to Q and A with the preclear on his state of case. How come you think you're supposed to Q and A with a preclear on the level of misemotion? And that's why in a large number of cases you don't get away with heavy control, and why it isn't therapeutic, because your emotion starts down to the degree that you have to apply strength, force and effort to the preclear. And man, that's the time the ARC is supposed to go up.

Now it's a fantastic drill which you're going to have the benefit of here in the next couple of days. And you try to keep up good ARC with an inanimate object, and you've only got a ghost of the difficulty of maintaining ARC with a misemotional object. At least the ashtray which you're asking to sit in the chair is not swearing back at you. In other words, you have to look and sound and feel alive, and get that ARC coming up the line all the way.

The heavier the control the better the ARC. You've got to learn it, you've got to learn it. The truth of the matter is that if you could raise the ARC high enough, if the A and the R were high enough, your mechanical touch would be unnecessary. But then you would become totally the monitor of the preclear, and you'd almost eclipse on his self determinism. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to raise it up there. It's not bad to let it go that high north.

Now when I was researching policemen, trying to find out if they were good or bad for society, and discovering that they were probably the genus of society's downward spiral, their association with the criminals and their passing it along to the decent citizen. That amount of misemotion is what caves in a society, as much as anything else. It puts the lowest levels of the society in direction communication with the upper levels of the society.

And the police are so bad at this that they have to have jails! And they cannot keep order. And we have police and crime. How can you have police and crime? You either have police or you have crime. Ah ha ha, but they don't know their business. "Where ya goin' buddy!" ARC. "Sit down!" Good ARC, according to a cop. Now I know that it's possible to handle the dog gondest dope addicts, marijuana tea patters, and drunks with practically nothing but ARC and a little bit of manual control. I know that. I know that by positive experience. I also know that you can handle a mutinous crew, a rebellious subordinate, or an out of his mind superior, with simple, high ARC control.

You don't restrain your, you don't restrain your temper, you don't hold your temper. I was telling you this the other day. You don't hold your temper back. You do not restrain your anger. You do not keep from hitting him. What the hell are you doing in that tone band, huh? What are you doing in the tone band of prevention? Well it's true that you can't have much doubt of your own effectiveness in your own mind in order to perform this. Doubt must be minimal.

There is a trust and belief expressed by you, not only in your voice timbre, but in your beingness, which compels not obedience, but communication. And in view of the fact that you're asking this person, you understand that you're asking this person to cooperate with life at large, and the fact that you are asking him to cooperate with life at large, and that your standards are very high, your ethical level is beyond reproach, you can then get away with any degree of control you wish to apply. But if you think that punishment has anything to do with control, then you just don't understand control.

If you say to somebody, "You don't do that so and so and so and so and so, we're going to run you in, and bla bla bla nya nya nya!" "What's the matter buddy? You scared stiff?" That's the first question that always comes to the tip of my tongue, and has ever since I found out they were scared stiff. Those guys are in terror. What do we got all these dumb bells walking around in the society with big guns buckled on in shuddering terror of their fellow man? What's the idea? Well I guess we just have to have a lot more complexity than most people. I guess life has to be very complicated for us, if we arm men in terror, because that expression of, "Where are you going buddy!" and, "Get back in line!" and all of this sort of stuff, from the word go, is fear. The man has no confidence that his command is going to be obeyed.

The first tiny entrance of threat or punishment or duress into a communication line cancels the communication line. And brother, if you don't learn that you'll never be an auditor. You're not restraining your anger. What is the matter with you that you would Q and A, or your bank would Q and A with a preclears to the degree that you become annoyed just because somebody was screaming at you? This is silly. You do this well, you appear as a god to other people and to preclears. And this is for sure. You become unavoidable in what you say. One, you're not telling people to jump off the cliff for their own good. You haven't had to introduce heaven or hell, threats or hopes thereof, to amount to anything in Scientology, therefore you're winning. You don't tell people unless they get processed you're going to have them, tie them to a stake and roast them slowly, and put an ice pack over their face so they'll stay alive long enough to really suffer from the burning. The high peak of the Roman Catholic Church's confidence in theirselves or their fellow man. Do you see this?

And therefore there is a way, a Scientology way to handle control that you will have to know a great deal about to make this one work. But I can tell you every single mechanic that makes this work. There are no missing mechanics in it. And we even know drills that can move you straight up the line to an ability to perform it. And, last part of your course will be very largely taken up with those drills.

Control. Control is a good thing if it's done knowingly and with good intent. And it becomes a workable process when it's done with terrific ARC. And this combination is unbeatable, and will reach all the way down unto the gates of Hades.

It isn't because you control people that they feel better, it's a combination of the works. You insist on the communication by duplicating it. You require compliance with the command without injury or threat. And a person learns, just as you will learn, that it's not necessarily bad to obey an order. And the moment they learn this then they might obey themselves. Well that's about all there is to it. A person who is spinning simply isn't in control of himself, so you'd better put him in control of himself at least on a via, or a substitute. You substitutily control him. Substitutionally you're controlling him, and he takes over that pattern. And then he does it. And by this gradient scale you provide the via by which he can arrive. And of course you've made the control much more complicated for him by providing a via in your own eyes maybe, but not in his. By providing a known source of control you have made the whole thing awfully simple. Sometimes much more simple than he can stand. But the funny part of it is, he will always follow through on this one. He won't miss.

So the first and foremost rung of these processes is control, and that rung continues all the way to the top. A process done without it is lost. Rendered less workable or totally unworkable, or even harmful. So, let's look over this vista of processes and realize that the control has to be done with a heavy communication. Heavy control, heavy ARC. That doesn't mean over communication, but it certainly means very, very high toned, well controlled communication too. And communication goes all the way up the line. And why do you suppose that control is therapeutic that you're applying? It's because a known source of control is at hand, and therefore you have havingness. And you enter CCH right at the lowest level of the line, and they continue all the way through in different forms, right up through the remainder of the processes. And whenever you lose one of them, then you're losing on that process. And that's about all there is to that. You lose one of these factors and you've lost on the process. You've always got to increase havingness, increase communication, and increase control.

Now you're not much interested in controllability. That is not your goal. Now the little boy who gives you his hand as he comes out of the nightmare could be forced into this, and I'll give you the idea of the way the public thinks of control. "If you don't give me your hand immediately I will beat you." Doesn't give you his hand so you beat him. "Now that'll teach you to give me your hand when I ask for it. Good." Next time he gives a hand, and he doesn't, you know, fast, so he beat him again. And say, "Give me your hand, and when I tell you to give me your hand I really mean it. You'd better give me your hand because horrible things are liable to happen if you don't give me your hand." And so on. And then he puts, you put the command on him again, you say, "Now give me your hand!" And your hand, and you say, "Well that's about time!" And what have you done? You've made the preclear, the person retreat. You put in a new machine.

Yes, he will give a person his hand thereafter. You can always punish a body into some new line of barriers. Some new cycle of "I'm supposed tos". Well this is entirely opposed to what we're doing.

The reason he screams is because he's giving up a machine. The reason he's so disturbed is because a factor that was trying to control him someplace in his "I'm supposed to" categories is now failing. And he's been trying to make it fail for years, but he was never able to. But you all of a sudden do, very smoothly.

Now the difference is is after this technique has been applied will one or two of these things occur. Will one or two of these two things occur--one of them, will he give you his hand with a whipped air, knowing he has to do it? Or, when the little boy gives you his hand does he look at you, see you, and laugh? If the process was administered well, any repetition of it in the society brings about only a further relief and a better present time. But if the process was administered badly we have our whole mechanisms of dramatization as recounted in Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health. Those things all came from installed commands of one kind or another. Now we take commands and we show they're not that bad, and we invite his willingness to obey a command, we invite his willingness on commands, we increase his tolerance on commands. The first thing you know he doesn't mind issuing a few himself. And he issues in the bank, and he says, "Be quiet." And the bank shuts up. That's about all there is to it. It's awfully simple. Control of course is based on start, change and stop, so you must always begin and end an action. And any action involves change.

Now where you disobey any of these fundamentals in auditing, as of the seventeenth ACC, you're going to have some of these "inexplicable", quote unquote, failures. But you just look back at the time when the preclear that you are walking through 8-C wrenched himself away suddenly, and you reached out and grabbed him very sharply and suddenly, with a heavy grasp. Much more of a grasp than the condition or the strength of the person warranted, miscalculation of effort. And you said, "You're not through yet, get back here!" And a day or so later you're still sweating on this preclear. And you say, "I wonder what happened here?" Nothing, except you simply restimulated the preclear, and became yourself a symbol for bad control. Now you're having to overcome that, one way or the other. You who have become the symbol for bad control is now trying to overcome your own symbolism. And you're going to have a tough time doing that. You could always act as a substitute for everybody in the world who mis-controlled anybody, as long as you yourself don't identify yourself with them. And you yourself becoming identified with bad control, of course are just liable to finish up the whole works. One burst of anger, one note of annoyance in your voice, one miscalculation of effort, one slip, one failure to make him go through with a command, and you to some degree are done as an auditor.

Now that is not serious. There are lot of preclears. There are other auditors. But that's what finishes a case gain. One miss. If you're in the line of being efficient about your auditing, of actually making gains up along the line, you are not allowed one miss. Funny part of it is, rephrasing the command by accident, being yourself tired, being a little sloppy, even upsetting an ashtray or something of that sort, is remediable, rather easily, as long as you are aware of the fact that the situation needs remedying. Of course if you're on a bent of having to be right all the time, you won't ever admit that you upset the ashtray, you'll say the wind did it when you did it, or something of the sort. And this will really upset the preclear, because it breaks reality.

I had an awful time in the fourth London ACC trying to convince some of the students that they ought to be honest with the preclears. It was really interesting, how they squirmed before they would. A very fine bunch of people, but some of them just couldn't bring themselves to take the responsibility of having committed a blunder of magnitude in terms of distracting the preclear's attention. A mis-phrasing of the command, something of this sort. But one by one, with such incidents as this, they gradually broke down, and got into line on this. Auditor reported for the session, he was quite ill. He felt ill. He didn't want to audit, but by orders he had to. So he sat down and he said to the preclear, he said, "I'm quite ill. I couldn't care less. I will undoubtedly make a large number of blunders. I don't feel like auditing you at all. If you get audited, why, it's up to you." And the preclear said, "Well alright, go ahead." Funny part of it was, the auditor didn't make another blunder. And the preclear was in high ARC the whole distance, and they had a wonderful session. And the auditor felt splendid at the end of the session. First time he'd ever been honest with a preclear.

Sometimes a preclear looks at you and says, "I'm holding you. I'm holding you too long. I mean, you have to go now, and I just keep running this." And so forth. You say to them, "No, no. It's alright. I; you're not making me late for anything. That's what I'm supposed to do. I'm supposed to…" Hell no. You are late with the situation. It sometimes takes a lot of nerve on your part, just to break through all this social machinery and say, "Yes, you sure are holding me up. I was due downstairs twenty minutes ago, but that's alright. I'm perfectly willing to be a little later." Preclear, "Ok." And suddenly flattens the command. It was the strain of making you late, and the unreality of your ARC which was making the command drag.

If somebody says, "I'm bothering you," and they're bothering me, I always say, "Yes, you are." It's a very disarming and horrible thing to tell them. They didn't really mean it that way, but it establishes a higher level of reality. Somebody comes in and says, "How do you feel today?" I don't feel very good, so I say, "I don't feel very good." They don't expect this as a pattern of reply at all. It upsets them. You'll be surprised how it upsets their social machinery. Somebody says, "How are you?" And you say, "I'm; I don't feel very well." Just this little slide, see? You're supposed to say, "Fine, how are you?" You know? Passing just words. And you tell them, "I don't feel very well." It's quite remarkable this. People who are rather distant acquaintances of yours particularly, appear to be thrown by this. But all you're looking at is a restimulated dramatization. The social machinery is keying out. You entered some reality into the situation. You become more real to them at that moment. Why? You entered some more reality. Not because you did something different, because you said what it was.

Somebody comes in, and they say, "Read a story." I used to have young writers used to hang around New York, eighteen deep. You're not supposed to hear this, but I only paid attention to the young girls that wanted to write. But anyhow, they'd hang around. Every once in a while they'd force their way, and they'd force a manuscript into my hands and say, "Now what do you thing of this?" And I'd say, "I think I'm being forced to read a manuscript." "Yes, you are. But you can read it, can't you?" And I'd say, "Yeah, I usually read English." I never had any enemies amongst those people. But there were two or three people I was always polite to. And they eventually became my enemies. Isn't that fascinating? I mean, amongst the people with whom I was quite real I never got any enemies. But there were two or three people that were too important to be real with, and eventually why, they became enemies of mine. Some of them couldn't rest until they'd started up a new rumor about how horrible Hubbard was. We've even gotten a kick back of some of that, some of this stuff you hear of Dianetics and Scientology is from that area. An unreality.

You expect to maintain ARC with the preclear, you'll have to be quite real with the preclear. And if you use a process which is wrong, I'm afraid you'll have to say so. But it would appear to you that this would be a very destructive thing to do to a preclear. You've run him for forty-five minutes, he's getting no better, and you suddenly say, "Well, I guess I've chosen the wrong process, haven't I?" You'd be surprised how he snaps out of it. You try to justify yourself and you will continue him in the mire. Am I making my point?

So your insistence on being right is a different thing than your insistence on the action, commanded, that it be undertaken. Please differentiate between those two things. If you tell a fellow to move over to the wall, even if you had to go down and get a local Caterpillar tractor company to drive in the front door and push him over there, you've had it. You've told him to go to the wall. On manual control you're going to walk him there. He's going to go to the wall. That's all there is to it. That's the end. He just goes to the wall. He's going to go to the wall, your ARC is high enough to assure him that he's undertaking this action, you weren't fooling when you said it because you were so friendly about it. You're going to have to take hold of his shoulders or his arms, or even put your shoulder against the middle of his back. You're not going to hurt him to make him go to the wall, but you're certainly going to take him over to the wall. You got that? And in that you can never, never relax. If you said it, you're stuck with it. And that's the motto by which you have to go. Not because it's a good engramic phrase, but it's perfectly true. You said, that's it.

I said, "Go ahead and fly through the air," to a preclear once in a very careless moment. Preclear had said something about flying all to pieces, or going up in the air, and I said, "Well go ahead and fly through the air." It was a bad thing for me to do, because I was disgusted. I was disgusted with the preclear, and I actually mirrored it. And the preclear took it as an auditing command and looked at me blankly and said, "How am I supposed to do that?" Well, I could have said at that moment, "It's a mis-command. I didn't mean it." But I didn't. I picked the preclear up and made him fly through the air. And I said, "See, you can do it."

Now where you have, where you have done something wrong you can patch it up, and it helps reality. But where you've told a preclear to do something on a control line, it doesn't help anything to suddenly back down. Please get the difference between these two things. You told him to do something, and that's it. This positiveness, this certainty, this security and so forth is itself command, and is security. And that's it. So, if you're going to maintain reality with the preclear you can't be mis-emotional with the preclear. In other words, it isn't something I'm telling you not to do, I'm just telling you you have to get good enough so that you aren't. It's just that easy. You'll only be mis-emotional where you're worried about the preclear, or you're upset about auditing a preclear, or something. And if you're upset about it, and you don't think you can get away with it, then you'll continue to be mis-emotional. But if you are over that peak, and you can do this well, then you'll never have any real difficulty.

You can be tired and upset, and knock the ash tray over, and do most anything you want to do, mis-state the command one time, and change it around and say, "That's wrong. I meant…," and you'll be alright, but you've told the preclear to undertake an action. Everything is bogged down until that occurs. So this one you don't miss on, and you don't get mis-emotional about his non-compliance. That he becomes non-compliant means that you were up against his bank. And I give you again the Original Thesis, those little equations in the bank of the Thesis. Quite interesting. The preclear plus the auditor, and so forth. That's fascinating, but it's emerging in with great clarity.

The preclear's life, the ARC you can express is the closest expression of life itself, short of actually creating some. And thus you have your greatest affinity with the preclear when your communication contains the highest level of observable life. Therefore, in auditing, and in handling processes, it looks like all processes are conditional upon your learning the first process on the scale that goes furthest to the bottom. And it looks to me like learning that process then becomes the most important activity that you could undertake.

You know how to duplicate commands, and you know auditing positions, and you know the axioms, and you know this and you know that. Well, to maintain a high level of control, and simultaneously maintain a terribly high level of ARC, well that's merely super human. But you're an auditor, and that's expected of you. And I'm sorry, but it's a fact. The oddity is that you begin to look like a god to a pc. I mean, you just look like you've graduated way on upstairs somewhere. There is then no doubt in his mind. If you believe that he can do it, he'll do it. And all of a sudden he finds out then that whether you believe he can do it or not, he can do it. And his action of doing it becomes independent of your believing he can do it. Therefore, we are not trying to make Trillbes at all. We're not trying to Svengali people into being automatons and puppets.

If everybody was nice to everybody, with control, you would very soon have a population of very, very high toned people and there wouldn't be a slave in the lot. The doctors would all be out of work, tremendous industrial cataclysms would take place, the whole society would be messed up thoroughly. The only way you can keep people in their dog houses and on the assembly line, incapable, worried, upset, economically starved and bludgeoned, the only way that you can do this at all is by using mis-emotion and threat of punishment with control. And if you use these two things, then of course giving people orders is never therapeutic, but only destructive. So it's the ARC and the positiveness of the control that counts. See, that's what counts. Positiveness of control and height of the ARC.

Therefore, you can begin a new era, you can begin things newly, and you as an auditor, from this lecture on I hope, will; oh I know; you will roll a much hotter case. It's quite important that you do. Quite important that you do. And I'm trying to teach you to be auditors. And this is the best thing that I can teach you, in view of the fact that you're never going to get very far off of using it in the world to come. And therefore, the remainder of this unit will be terrifically specialized along this line. And that's the first, most basic process we have today, it is newly isolated, it is newly understood, the technicalities and difficulties of teaching it and so forth are pretty well in hand now. And we're winning. And you are winning already on it. And you only have to be about a thousand percent better than you are. And that's an easy one for you to accomplish here in the next few days.

Thank you.